Is Ecclesiastical Latin Gods language?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TEPO
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
OraLabora said:
As a scientist I’m pretty much inclined to agree with this. I’ve worked in chemistry, physics and computer science. They all boil down to math. IMHO some of that math is so complex only God could understand it but I digress 😛

I also don’t think God uses language to read the hearts of men. He’s way above that.

I would say no for Latin. No matter how much I love it or love Gregorian chant or love (especially and OF Mass where I can hear it) a Mass in Latin.

The 22 other sui juris Churches in communion with Rome would probably be inclined to agree 😉

And within the Roman Church, I think there are relatively newly evangelized parts of the world for which Latin is an obstacle to God, not a pathway to God, because they come from cultures and languages that, unlike Western European languages, don’t have any common roots with Latin.

Which is no doubt why the Holy Spirit guided the bishops at Vatican II to approve the use of the vernacular in liturgies. They probably didn’t expect though, that most Western European-derived cultures would be so quick in dumping Latin, and that is a great shame.
Click to expand...
:clapping:
Yes. It was the Holy Spirit and not just the opinions of the Bishops. Vatican II happened for a good reason.
And it was a wise decision indeed.
 
TEPO said:
So is it Gods language?

Also, is it possible that language may influence action? In other words, if a language was formed and shaped by a particular race, say French for example -if I were to learn French, is it possible that I would “act” more French? Likewise, if I were to learn Latin, would I act more “Catholic-ish”…?
Click to expand...
As others have said, God has no language as He invented every language known and to be known to mankind.

I’ve seen studies that point to language influencing thought, but not action. Knowing a language will help you understand things (intentionally general) in a different way. So perhaps knowing Ecclesiastical Latin would help you understand the teachings of Catholicism in a different way. 🤷
 
CompSciGuy said:
:clapping:
Yes. It was the Holy Spirit and not just the opinions of the Bishops. Vatican II happened for a good reason.
And it was a wise decision indeed.
Click to expand...
Wasn’t the use of vernacular approved outside of Council?
 
Hesychios said:
Wasn’t the use of vernacular approved outside of Council?
Click to expand...
One can make a case it was “approved” by the Council of Trent, as an indult perhaps? As long as it wasn’t practiced everywhere. (Trent tried to standardize the Mass and language.)

If anything Vatican II reinforced Trent and furthermore specified Latin to be retained in the liturgy. But the biased (IMO) English translation of the document led them to believe the vernacular was “frequently” advantageous, setting into motion language committees to translate the entire Mass into various languages, something which Pope John XXIII never intended. In fact, John XXIII, who had convened the council, signed not a single document of the same council.
 
ProVobis said:
One can make a case it was “approved” by the Council of Trent, as an indult perhaps? As long as it wasn’t practiced everywhere. (Trent tried to standardize the Mass and language.)

If anything Vatican II reinforced Trent and furthermore specified Latin to be retained in the liturgy. But the biased (IMO) English translation of the document led them to believe the vernacular was “frequently” advantageous, setting into motion language committees to translate the entire Mass into various languages, something which Pope John XXIII never intended. In fact, John XXIII, who had convened the council, signed not a single document of the same council.
Click to expand...
So it’s not really the fault of the Council, but the administration?
 
TEPO said:
My questions are honest by the way. I take pride in keeping things as simple as I can in order to help myself decide on what is or isn’t the honest truth.
Click to expand...
Hello Tepo:

I am not an expert in all of the topics raised here, and I do not mean to disagree with an particular opinion expressed so far, but I would like to add a few ponts (some of which have been alluded to, at least implciitly):

It is not exactly the case that all the Church’s liturgies and dogmas have been created in Latin. Certainly the Roman Church (meaning, the Catholic Church of the Roman [Latin] Rite) issues Her decrees in Latin for the most part, and historically the language obviously had a great role in Church music, the public prayer of the Church (the Divine Office), etc.

However, as several other people have noted, there were - and are - other Churches in communion with Rome, who have very ancient liturgies, and who have contributed to the Church’s Theological patrimony, who never used Latin, but instead used Greek, Syriac, or Armenian, just to name three.

I belong to the Armenian Catholic Church, and there are many ancient prayers, hymns, and other texts which have great value to the entire Church but were never written in Latin. I could also mention tjat there are Latin Fathers of the Church, and then there are Greek Fathers of the Church.

As to your question about whether language can have an effect on spirituality - (I am paraphrasing your question, I realize) this is an interesting point, which I might take up another time. I don’t want this to be too long. Sorry it is so long already!
 
LePicard said:
Hello Tepo:

I am not an expert in all of the topics raised here, and I do not mean to disagree with an particular opinion expressed so far, but I would like to add a few ponts (some of which have been alluded to, at least implciitly):

It is not exactly the case that all the Church’s liturgies and dogmas have been created in Latin. Certainly the Roman Church (meaning, the Catholic Church of the Roman [Latin] Rite) issues Her decrees in Latin for the most part, and historically the language obviously had a great role in Church music, the public prayer of the Church (the Divine Office), etc.

However, as several other people have noted, there were - and are - other Churches in communion with Rome, who have very ancient liturgies, and who have contributed to the Church’s Theological patrimony, who never used Latin, but instead used Greek, Syriac, or Armenian, just to name three.

I belong to the Armenian Catholic Church, and there are many ancient prayers, hymns, and other texts which have great value to the entire Church but were never written in Latin. I could also mention tjat there are Latin Fathers of the Church, and then there are Greek Fathers of the Church.

As to your question about whether language can have an effect on spirituality - (I am paraphrasing your question, I realize) this is an interesting point, which I might take up another time. I don’t want this to be too long. Sorry it is so long already!
Click to expand...
Romans 10:12
 
TEPO said:
Surely you’re not claiming that Jesus could not speak Latin any less than Chinese, Arabic or any other language that has ever existed or will exist in the future. But that’s beside the point, which is that Gods Holy Church writes her Doctrines and Truths in Ecclesiastical Latin, and as long as the Church exists, there will be those who will learn to interpret these things in their original language.

So what then are we to believe about the Latin language, and the fact that the Latin Mass is still guarded so closely by thousands of Catholics who refuse to let go --even though it is uncommon. What sort of personality develops from fluently spoken Latin…? The world has not seen this kind for a thousand years, that is -outside the Church.
Click to expand...
Not very many out of 1.2 billion!!
 
ProVobis said:
The less likely it will be corrupted. 😉
Click to expand...
My concern is that a lot of people try to make Latin out to be almost supernaturally special which it is not of course. It arose as the language of the Church because it was the vernacular at the time. There is nothing special about it in my opinion. I’m not for a minute suggesting it should not continue to be the language of the Church but lets not get carried away. I know that being a dead language there has been no corruption and meanings from the past have the same meanings now. However, It is simply a language.
 
thistle said:
My concern is that a lot of people try to make Latin out to be almost supernaturally special which it is not of course. It arose as the language of the Church because it was the vernacular at the time. There is nothing special about it in my opinion. I’m not for a minute suggesting it should not continue to be the language of the Church but lets not get carried away. I know that being a dead language there has been no corruption and meanings from the past have the same meanings now. However, It is simply a language.
Click to expand...
Tell a Muslim Arabic is simply a language and you will see why you are correct in thinking that if this Christian God exists, he certianly must know all languages and not give a care which one a person is praying in.
 
thistle said:
My concern is that a lot of people try to make Latin out to be almost supernaturally special which it is not of course.
Click to expand...
Your concern wasn’t that obvious when you said “Not very many out of 1.2 billion!!” (post #140)

Just pointing that out.
 
ProVobis said:
Your concern wasn’t that obvious when you said “Not very many out of 1.2 billion!!” (post #140)

Just pointing that out.
Click to expand...
Then you missed the point which was that its just a language. Nothing more.
 
thistle said:
My concern is that a lot of people try to make Latin out to be almost supernaturally special which it is not of course. It arose as the language of the Church because it was the vernacular at the time. There is nothing special about it in my opinion. I’m not for a minute suggesting it should not continue to be the language of the Church but lets not get carried away. I know that being a dead language there has been no corruption and meanings from the past have the same meanings now. However, It is simply a language.
Click to expand...
Interesting exegesis of St. Stephen’s witness prior to him being stoned when he accused the Jews of idolizing the temple. He said that they should not put the temple and the law above God. He accused them of idolatry because the temple is something made of human hands.

I contemplated on this and thought about claims like this to “Sacred Languages”. Every language is man made, there is no language that came directly from God. Even apparitions happen in the language of the visionary. God communicates to us in however we will understand best. Do not idolize the language.
 
thistle said:
Then you missed the point which was that its just a language. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
Yes, but every language, whether it’s spoken, computer, or whatever, has a different purpose and is an expression of culture. Otherwise we wouldn’t have so many languages. Ecclesiastical Latin (as opposed to Classical Latin or Vulgar Latin) AFAIK was the language the (man-made?) Church developed to write its documents and say its liturgy in. (I suppose one can make the case the Church also developed Old Church Slavonic but that’s another topic.) So to a Catholic the EL is more than just a language. To a Protestant it isn’t even a language.
 
ProVobis said:
Yes, but every language, whether it’s spoken, computer, or whatever, has a different purpose and is an expression of culture. Otherwise we wouldn’t have so many languages. Ecclesiastical Latin (as opposed to Classical Latin or Vulgar Latin) AFAIK was the language the (man-made?) Church developed to write its documents and say its liturgy in. (I suppose one can make the case the Church also developed Old Church Slavonic but that’s another topic.) So to a Catholic the EL is more than just a language. To a Protestant it isn’t even a language.
Click to expand...
Yes but every language is just a language. There is nothing “magical” or “supernatural” about a language.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Interesting exegesis of St. Stephen’s witness prior to him being stoned when he accused the Jews of idolizing the temple. He said that they should not put the temple and the law above God. He accused them of idolatry because the temple is something made of human hands.

I contemplated on this and thought about claims like this to “Sacred Languages”. Every language is man made, there is no language that came directly from God. Even apparitions happen in the language of the visionary. God communicates to us in however we will understand best. Do not idolize the language.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top